Sri Lanka is under siege
[b]Berlin, 09 June, (Asiantribune.com): [/b]Mr. Eckert writes: I, too, was astonished - to say the least - on the remarks in the conclusions of the United Nation´s Special Rapporteur, Mrs. Asma Jehangir and her denial that there was “no concrete proof” of anyone being forced or coerced into giving up their ancestral religion.
My collegue Lalith Ganhewa, also a journalist and I had clearly stated in front of the commission that people we had talked to were being coerced and mentally being forced to change their native religion.
How else would one call this unethical offer of food, shelter and livelihood in exchange for “coming to our church”, or “joining our (the church´s) Bible reading”, or the most generous offer of “doing for you people what the government is not doing for you” - with a side dish of brain washing? These people we talked to feared retaliation by these “churches” and their missionary members, if they would go and talk openly about what they were “offered” and about what just might happen, if these "offers" were not accepted or rejected. So, Mrs Jehangir, maybe we are just misunderstanding you? Or maybe it is just a question of semantics?
Not really. Remember, Mrs. Jehangir, the American Indians? Remember the Mayas? See, what became of them? Overrun, converted, uprooted and they were deprived of their ancestral values and way of life. And what you see now is not the old Western colonialism but neo-colonialism. Or is it called neo-liberalism? Of course, “colonialism” is “politically incorrect”. It has to be replaced. With a seemingly harmless term. Now it’s called “disaster relief” or “reconstruction” - it means the same thing but it’s effect is even worse than that of plain old colonialism.